-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change of covr license to GPL-3 #256
Comments
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3.
Regards,
Karl
|
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 -@wibeasley |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3. |
@jimhester How about getting rid of the EDIT: or trying to change |
I accept the change to GPL-3 However, I thought it was possible to call GPL packages within non-GPL packages and use a non-GPL license in the calling package without any issues. Because otherwise, wouldn't this require that all of the packages using |
@gaborcsardi I cannot change the withr dependency because it inherits GPL>=2 from code adapted from devtools, and devtools inherits GPL>=2 from code adapted from R itself. I looked into removing the withr dependency, but I would end up just duplicating the code locally, which did not really seem within the letter of the licenses either. |
:( Yeah, somebody else would need to rewrite those functions, just from the docs.... Btw. how about calling base R functions? Those are GPL, too...... I mean, if this is really a concern, then how can we have any non-GPL packages? Sorry, not really a question for you.... |
@jimhester why not just reimplement those functions? I'm with @gaborcsardi on this one used_withr_functions <- c(
"with_dir",
"with_makevars",
"with_envvar",
"with_output_sink",
"with_options"
) Honestly, this basic functionalities should be built into |
@rmflight I think different people / organisations have different viewpoints on the licensing issue. Myself, RStudio and the R community in general seem to feel like MIT licensed packages can depend on GPL licensed packages without an issue, as the packages are obtained separately and assembled on the users computer. Oracle is taking a stricter view and insists on the package having to be GPL licensed if any package is GPL licensed and as @gaborcsardi mentioned R itself is GPL-2|GPL-3 licensed, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯. In either case covr is a direct dependency on very few packages, even packages which have covr in I have been trying to deal with this license issue in the R Coverage Working Group for almost a full year now and see this license change as the best way to move forward. |
@jimhester would this approach work? #257 |
Is that where Oracle comes in to the picture? I was bit confused why Oracle was mentioned at all. |
Yes, most of the working group is from Oracle (https://wiki.r-consortium.org/view/Code_Coverage_Tool_for_R), they are also responsible for #247 to add icc support, which would require some sort of license resolution to be merged. |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3.
…On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Henrik Bengtsson ***@***.*** > wrote:
I have been trying to deal with this license issue in the R Coverage
Working Group for almost a full year now and see this license change as the
best way to move forward.
Is that where Oracle comes in to the picture? I was bit confused why
Oracle was mentioned at all.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#256 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGp7EnXahB-TdPuya9wSyrS1MJ4K0iAIks5rrTy7gaJpZM4Mv7ib>
.
|
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
1 similar comment
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
Giving control over essential R tooling to Oracle... What could go wrong? :) |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
I accept.
…Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Karl Forner ***@***.***> wrote:
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3.
Regards,
Karl
―
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 (or whatever @jimhester prefers in the end). Two thoughts:
In the bigger picture: |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
I'm such a minor contributor to 'covr' that I definitely wouldn't stand in
the way of whatever license change you need to make.
However, I don't particularly like that the GPL3 license essentially
virally bullies other packages into adopting its terms. If there's a way
to avoid it, I'd definitely prefer that.
-Ken
…On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jim Hester ***@***.***> wrote:
@rmflight <https://github.com/rmflight> I think different people /
organisations have different viewpoints on the licensing issue. Myself,
RStudio and the R community in general seem to feel like MIT licensed
packages can depend on GPL licensed packages without an issue, as the
packages are obtained separately and assembled on the users computer.
Oracle is taking a stricter view and insists on the package having to be
GPL licensed if any package is GPL licensed and as @gaborcsardi
<https://github.com/gaborcsardi> mentioned R itself is GPL-2|GPL-3
licensed, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯.
In either case covr is a direct dependency on very few packages, even
packages which have covr in Suggests: do so mainly by convenience, as
covr is a developer tool not typically used when building or testing the
package on CRAN or shipped with the package to users. So regardless of the
covr license I do not thing it affects downstream dependencies.
I have been trying to deal with this license issue in the R Coverage
Working Group for almost a full year now and see this license change as the
best way to move forward.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#256 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAG1Q01HMN5vQWwKKy7BWUvwcChbg76iks5rrTuQgaJpZM4Mv7ib>
.
|
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3. I'm not a big fan of that license, but clearly a lot of discussion has already gone into this, so I'm happy for you to decide! |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
To make things easier, having already voiced my displeasure about it, I'll also say: I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3. -Ken |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3. |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3. |
@stevepeak, @renkun-ken, @rmflight Could you please respond one way or the other to this issue? As mentioned we cannot change the license without full approval. |
I am @rmflight, and I already replied above. I accept the change of license of covr to GPL-3. |
Sorry Robert, I missed checking off your approval, thanks for replying again! |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3 |
I accept the change of covr license to GPL-3. Thank you @jimhester! |
Thanks again to everyone for responding to this request and for contributing to covr! |
covr is currently MIT licensed, however a strict reading of the GPL-2 license for
dependency withr
(which is GPL >= 2) would require covr to also be GPL-2 or GPL-3. Oracle's'
legal representation suggested
LICENSE MIT + file LICENSE + Portions GPLv3 with Additional Permission | GPLv3
, but as this is a non-standard license it will be flagged by CRAN andcreate additional maintenance hassles going forward.
Because of these concerns I now feel the most expedient thing to do is to
change the covr license to GPL-3, however in order to do so I will need
approval from all contributors (listed below). Please reply to this issue with
either
We can only change license if we get acceptance from all contributors.
Thank you for your time and I apologize for the disturbance, thank you again
for contributing to covr.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: